SpaceX and California Coastal Commission Dispute over Rocket Launches along Central California Coast

Nestled in Santa Barbara County, California, is Vandenberg Space Force Base—the world’s second busiest spaceport.¹ At Vandenberg, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) leases land and has invested over $540 million in developing launch infrastructure.² Additionally, SpaceX conducts vital Falcon 9 rocket launches at Vandenberg for the national security and intelligence communities.³ As a result, the U.S. Air Force has long maintained that Vandenberg’s commercial launch programs qualify as “federal agency activities” under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”), thereby exempting them from state agency review.⁴

In recent years, the Air Force has increased launches at Vandenberg, approving thirty-six Falcon 9 launches in 2023 and fifty in 2024.⁵ Following the proposed increase in 2024, the Air Force submitted a consistency determination to the California Coastal Commission under the CZMA, asserting the project’s alignment with California’s coastal policies.⁶ After review, the Commission agreed with the consistency statement, though a disagreement arose among the Commissioners regarding whether the project was a federal or private activity.⁷ The Commission's findings noted that it was assessing its authority to review the project under the CZMA, and as a result, SpaceX may need to submit a coastal development permit or another consistency certification.⁸ In response, the Air Force, as permitted by federal regulations, proceeded with the fifty-launch schedule despite the Commission’s concerns about its authority.⁹

In October 2024, SpaceX filed a lawsuit against the Commission, arguing that it was exceeding its authority by regulating a critical space launch program.¹⁰ Specifically, SpaceX argued that the Commission’s attempt to regulate the Falcon 9 launches as federal activities, requiring a consistency certification and coastal development permit, would violate, among other laws, the CZMA, the Supremacy Clause, the Federal Enclave Clause, and California’s Coastal Act.¹¹ Moreover, SpaceX claimed that the Commission’s objection was politically driven.¹²

The Significance of SpaceX for National Security
Founded in 2002, SpaceX is a global leader in space transportation.¹³ SpaceX is known for reducing the cost for space access through its innovation of reusable launch vehicles.¹⁴ Notably, SpaceX is one of two companies in the United States that is certified to conduct critical launches for the national security and intelligence communities under the National Security Space Launch (“NSSL”) program.¹⁵ Put simply, SpaceX launches critical and sensitive national security assets into space for U.S. defense and intelligence agencies, such as missile-warning satellites, navigational satellites, surveillance spacecraft, and other national security payloads—payloads refer to the cargo, such as satellites, transported by rockets into orbit.¹⁶ Since 2020, SpaceX has launched roughly half of all NSSL payloads.¹⁷

The CZMA and Conflicting Arguments
Under the CZMA, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce reviews and approves state coastal management programs.¹⁸ The CZMA establishes two types of consistency review.¹⁹ First, when a “federal agency activity” impacts coastal zones, the federal agency must submit a “consistency determination” to the state, ensuring the activity aligns with the state’s enforceable policies.²⁰ If the state objects, the federal agency may proceed if it finds the activity fully consistent with those policies.²¹ Second, when an applicant seeks a federal permit for an activity affecting coastal resources, the applicant must submit a “consistency certification,” confirming the activity complies with the state’s approved program.²² Subsequently, the state may either approve or object to the certification and the Secretary has the authority to override any objection.²³

SpaceX asserts that because the Commission declined to concur with the Air Force’s assessment that the launch program complied with the California Coastal Program, it has unlawfully imposed additional requirements on SpaceX.²⁴ Specifically, SpaceX claims the Commission has required SpaceX to (1) submit a consistency certification under the CZMA, as mandated for certain federally licensed activities, and (2) obtain a coastal development permit under California’s Coastal Act for its launches from Vandenberg.²⁵ However, SpaceX contends that it is exempt from these requirements, as its launch program qualifies as a “federal agency activity” under the CZMA.²⁶

In contrast, the Commission argues that SpaceX’s claims are not justiciable, meaning they are not yet suitable for judicial review.²⁷ The Commission clarifies that it did not vote to require SpaceX to obtain a consistency certification or a coastal development permit.²⁸ Rather, the Commission simply determined that it did not concur with the Air Force’s consistency determination.²⁹ In essence, the Commission contends that SpaceX’s allegations of an injury-in-fact resulting from the Commission’s objection are not ripe—meaning no injury has occurred yet—and should be dismissed.³⁰

On March 13, 2025, the court issued a tentative order—essentially a preliminary decision— dismissing SpaceX’s complaint.³¹ The court determined that the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of ripeness and standing.³² This means that while the court dismissed the complaint, SpaceX has the opportunity to amend it by presenting additional facts that establish jurisdiction and demonstrate a sufficient injury to support standing.

¹ SpaceX’s Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Dismiss First Am. Compl. at 8 in Space Expl. Tech. Corp. v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 24-cv-08893 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (PACER docket entry No. 42).
² Id. at 10.
³ Id. at 8.
⁴ Id.
⁵ Id. at 11.
⁶ Def.’s Mot. Dismiss First Am. Compl. at 14 in Space Expl. Tech. Corp. v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 024-cv-08893 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (PACER docket entry No. 40).
⁷ Id.
⁸ Id.
⁹ Id. at 10, 14.
¹⁰ SpaceX’s Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Dismiss First Am. Compl. at 10 in Space Expl. Tech. Corp. v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 24-cv-08893 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (PACER docket entry No. 42).
¹¹ Id. at 9.
¹² Id. at 8.
¹³ Id. at 10.
¹⁴ Id.
¹⁵ Id.
¹⁶ Id.
¹⁷ Id.
¹⁸ 16 U.S.C. § 1455(d).
¹⁹ Def.’s Mot. Dismiss First Am. Compl. at 11 in Space Expl. Tech. Corp. v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 24-cv-08893 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (PACER docket entry No. 40).
²⁰ Id. at 11 (emphasis added).
²¹ Id. 11–12 (emphasis added).
²² Id. at 12.
²³ Id.
²⁴ Id. at 10.
²⁵ Id.
²⁶ Id.
²⁷ Def.’s Reply Mem. at 7 in Space Expl. Tech. Corp. v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 24-c-v08893 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (PACER docket entry No. 44).
²⁸ Id.
²⁹ Id.
³⁰ Id.
³¹ Tentative Order at 13-14 in Space Expl. Tech. Corp. v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 24-cv-08893 (C.D. Cal. 2024).
³² Id. at 11-13.
³³ Id. at 13-14.